alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Amendment No. 1 to stock option and restricted stock plans




 Exhibit 10.38 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 
 CELLU PARENT CORPORATION 
 2006 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN 
 Pursuant to Section 9 of
the Cellu Parent Corporation (“Corporation”) 2006 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan (“Plan”), the Corporation hereby adopts this Amendment Number One to evidence the action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
approving the following amendment to the Plan: 
 §1 
 By amending the first sentence of Section 4(a) to reflect the increase in the number of shares under the Plan, to read as follows:

 “A maximum of 12,095 shares of Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards under the Plan.” 
 §2 
 Except as
otherwise expressly amended by this Amendment, all the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment Number One to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this      day of
            , 2009. 
  

			
	CELLU PARENT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

	Title:
# C_2020215EN.01003801.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Koenig & Bauer v EUIPO (we’re on it)

(Case T-156/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark we’re on it - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Koenig & Bauer AG (Wurzbourg, Germany) (represented by: B. Reinisch, B. Sorg and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2019 (Case R 1027/2018-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign we’re on it as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Koenig & Bauer AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koenig & Bauer AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
exv10w3






EXHIBIT 10.3




THIRD AMENDMENT

TO

AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

EPE UNIT III, L.P.

Dated as of December 2, 2009




     This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement of Limited Partnership dated
as of May 7, 2007 (as subsequently amended, the “Partnership Agreement”) of EPE Unit III,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), is made and entered into
effective as of December 2, 2009, pursuant to the terms of the Partnership Agreement and in
accordance with Section 12.05 thereof.



     Section 1. AMENDMENTS.



          (a) Section 11.01. Paragraph (b) of Section 11.01 of the Partnership Agreement is
hereby amended and restated to read as follows:





     (b) unless otherwise agreed to by the General Partner, the Class A Limited Partner and
a Required Interest, the date that falls on the second trading day immediately following
the first date as of which the distributions with respect to all outstanding EPE Units held
by the Partnership relating to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 have been paid in
full by EPE;



     Section 2. RATIFICATION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. Except as expressly modified and amended
herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.



     Section 3. GOVERNING LAW. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, EXCLUDING ANY CONFLICTS-OF-LAW RULE OR PRINCIPLE THAT MIGHT
REFER THE GOVERNANCE OR CONTRUCTION OF THIS AGREEMENT TO THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION.



(Signature Page Follows)




 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first set
forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	GENERAL PARTNER:	 	EPCO, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ W. Randall Fowler
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	W. Randall Fowler

President and Chief Executive 

Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CLASS A LIMITED PARTNER:	 	DUNCAN FAMILY INTERESTS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Darryl E. Smith
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Darryl E. Smith

Treasurer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CLASS B LIMITED PARTNERS:	 	Representing a majority of Class B Limited
Partners of the Partnership, pursuant to Powers
of Attorney executed in favor of, and granted
and delivered to the General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	EPCO, INC.

(As attorney-in-fact for the Class B 

Limited Partners pursuant to 

powers of attorney)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ W. Randall Fowler	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	W. Randall Fowler

President and Chief Executive

Officer	 	 






Third Amendment to Agreement of Limited Partnership of EPE Unit III, L.P.
#### In the Matter of Linda J. Hicks, Petitioner, v Raymond E. Fortier, as Commissioner of the Chemung County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

—Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Chemung County Commissioner of Social Services which dismissed petitioner from her position as Director of Social Services.

After petitioner refused to accept a demotion from her permanent competitive position as Director of Social Services with the Chemung County Department of Social Services, respondent Commissioner of the Department (hereinafter respondent) filed charges against her pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, alleging incompetency in the performance of her managerial duties. After a 15-day hearing at which petitioner, respondent and others testified, the hearing officer filed a report recommending that certain of the charges be sustained and that petitioner’s demotion be upheld. Respondent adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We reject petitioner’s claim that the selection of the particular hearing officer resulted in a denial of due process *(see, Matter of Pollman v Fahey, 106*AD2d 771, 773). As to petitioner’s claim concerning the role of respondent in filing the charges, testifying at the hearing and rendering the final determination, we are of the view that as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, respondent should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges *(see, Matter of Sander v Owens,*82 AD2d 968; *see also, Matter of Edgar v Dowling,*96 AD2d 510; *Matter of Ortiz v*
      *931
      *Lesser,*83 AD2d 663; *Matter of Martin v Bates,*65 AD2d 818). Accordingly, the petition should be granted to the extent of annulling the determination and remitting the matter to respondents for a de novo determination on the present record by an official of the Chemung County Department of Social Services who would be authorized to act during the absence or inability of respondent *(see, Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, supra).*We reach no other issue.

Determination annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Glenn F., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.

—Order unanimously re*1014versed, on the law, without costs, and new trial granted. Memorandum: At a joint fact-finding hearing, respondents, represented by the same court-assigned Law Guardian, were adjudicated juvenile delinquents on the ground that they had stolen an automobile battery. The adjudication was premised on accessorial liability (Penal Law art 20). The right of a defendant to receive effective assistance of counsel may be substantially impaired if one lawyer simultaneously represents the conflicting interests of other defendants *(People v Macerola,*47 NY2d 257, 262; *People v Gomberg,*38 NY2d 307, 312; *People v Davis,*72 AD2d 69, 72). On this record, it cannot be said that there was no possibility of prejudice as a result of the joint representation *(see, People v Philip L. S.,*57 NY2d 820, 821).

In these situations a weighty responsibility is imposed upon the hearing court to determine whether defendants’ decision to proceed with one attorney is an informed one *(People v Gomberg, supra,*p 313; *People v Davis, supra,*p 72). "[BJefore the formal commencement of trial, it is the responsibility of the Trial Judge, independent of the attorney’s obligation to inform his clients of any conflicting interests which may hinder his representation, to 'ascertain, on the record, whether each defendant [represented by the same attorney] has an awareness of the potential risks involved in that course and has knowingly chosen it’ ” *(People v Macerola, supra,*p 263, quoting *People v Gomberg, supra,*pp 313-314). This is particularly true where, as here, the court has assigned one court-appointed attorney to represent both respondents *(see, People v Davis, supra).*Since the Family Court Judge failed to make satisfactory inquiry and respondents have demonstrated that there exists a significant possibility of a conflict of interest, they are entitled to a new trial *(People v Macerola, supra,*p 264).

We have reviewed respondents’ other claims of error and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.—juvenile delinquency.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Michael L. Parker, a President and Director of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports filed in respect of periods
included  in  the  year  covered  by  this  annual  report,   of  WAMU  MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-S2;

     2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a  material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or  servicing  information
required to be provided  to the  trustee by the  servicer  under the pooling and
servicing, or similar,  agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicer
under the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement  and based  upon my
knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and
except as disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its  obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating  to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an  independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting  a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:

Washington Mutual


Dated: March 15, 2004
                                     /s/ Michael L. Parker
                                         Michael L. Parker,
                                         President and Director
[***] CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED WITH
RESPECT TO THE OMITTED PORTIONS.

Exhibit 10.57

UTSTARCOM, INC.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

Effective as of March 2, 2001

This
Amendment No. 1 to the Assignment Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered into as of March 2, 2001 and amends that certain Assignment Agreement dated as of
July 24, 2000 (the "Assignment Agreement"), by and among UTStarcom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Stable Gain International Limited, a British Virgin Islands company
("Stable Gain").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Company and Stable Gain desire to amend the Assignment Agreement; and

WHEREAS,
the Assignment Agreement may be amended as set forth in Section 9.5 thereof.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:









Except
as amended by this Amendment, the Assignment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Capitalized
terms in this Amendment not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning as in the Assignment Agreement.

This
Amendment will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without giving effect to the conflicts of law principles thereof.

This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[REMAINDER
OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to the Assignment Agreement as of the date written above.

|UTSTARCOM, INC.                     |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | 
|By:Hong Lu, Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|STABLE GAIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED   |  | 
|By:Wang Jin, Vice President         |  | 

---

APPENDIX 1

Exhibit C

Shares

|Purchaser Price |  | Average Share Price |  | Shares
|--------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------
|[***]           |  | [***]               |  | [***] 

---

QuickLinks
# C_2021088EN.01003001.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)

(Case T-831/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 88/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2533/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of


Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, David M. Demshur, Chief Executive Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Report").





I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: February 19, 2010
/s/ David M. DemshurName: David M. DemshurTitle: Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021263EN.01001802.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission

(Case T-789/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Trade with territories under military occupation - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Common commercial policy - Article 207 TFEU - Common foreign and security policy - Article 215 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011)

(2021/C 263/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tom Moerenhout (Humbeek, Belgium) and the six other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1567 of 4 September 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’ (OJ 2019 L 241, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1567 of 4 September 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1567 of 4 September 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Gordon, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered March 15, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence adduced at trial, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that on May 3, 1977 defendant killed eight-year-old Nathan Scharf by throwing him off the roof of a six-story building in Brooklyn *(People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32). Witnesses put defendant in the company of the boy, who had a bicycle with him, from shortly before 8 p.m. until they were last observed together in the elevator heading up to the roof of the building at about 8:15 p.m. About five minutes thereafter, a tenant heard a shattering noise on the terrace. Investigation led to the discovery of Nathan’s broken body, naked from the waist down, on the terrace. His bicycle was found in the stairway, next to the roof landing. Prior to his arrest, during questioning by the police, defendant gave a false alibi. After his arrest, defendant made damaging admissions outside central booking to television news reporters who questioned him about the crime. Defendant stated to one of the reporters that he did not know what he was doing at the time; that he was intoxicated and an alcoholic; and that he was sorry about the whole thing. He also stated that he only knew the boy from the neighborhood, did not know the boy’s family and did not know that his father was a rabbi.

We have viewed the videotape and find that it was properly admitted into evidence. Uncounseled statements made after a defendant has requested counsel are inadmissible only if elicited by an agent of the State *(People v Hobson,*39 NY2d 479, 481). There is no evidence here that the statements made by defendant during the television interview were induced, provoked or *410encouraged by any actions of the police officers *(see, People v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 342, *cert denied*460 US 1047; *People v Jones,*47 NY2d 528). On the contrary, defendant freely decided to talk to reporters in an informal, on-the-street meeting. Thus, the introduction of the videotape did not violate his right to counsel *(People v Hobson, supra,*at p 481).

We have considered such other of defendant’s arguments as have been preserved for our review and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 823 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 823

To permit aliens who lawfully enter the United States on valid visas as 
nonimmigrant elementary and secondary school students to attend public 
  schools in the United States for longer than 1 year if such aliens 
reimburse the local educational agency that administers the school for 
 the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of providing education at such 
            school for the period of the alien's attendance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

   Mr. Schumer (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Leahy) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit aliens who lawfully enter the United States on valid visas as 
nonimmigrant elementary and secondary school students to attend public 
  schools in the United States for longer than 1 year if such aliens 
reimburse the local educational agency that administers the school for 
 the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of providing education at such 
            school for the period of the alien's attendance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening America's Public 
Schools Through Promoting Foreign Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS.

    Section 214(m)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``unless--'' and all that 
follows through ``(ii)'' and inserting ``unless''.
                                 <all>
```